the original discussion i believe was about the use of ammonia in what is termed 'drunken compost' 12 oz beer , 12 oz cola [soda] , 8 oz ammonia in a sprayer set to empty that quart of mix into 20 gallons of water creating a 256:1 final mix. this accelerates the compost process to the point that it can be applied to the garden as a mulch in 2 weeks. increased growth and fruiting are observed. increased worm populations are also observed. the reason for organics is to keep certain toxic compounds out of the food supply. it does not guarantee quality. quality is assumed. we now collide with man's penchant for fanaticism. all chemical fertilizers and compounds not having been created via a biological process or mined out of the earth in some way [some of which are not healthful at all though certified organic. azomite {very high in aluminium} comes to mined] have been termed as toxic compounds which may not be entirely true. the irresponsible use of anything can be harmful. then we have the whole salt index discussion which is more prevalent in soil with low organic matter.which brings another discussion the real culprit is often a lack of organic matter more than anything else. more later

sandy16 - IMO, it doesn't matter whether the cover crop is tilled into the soil or cut down and thrown on the compost pile and then tilled into the soil after composting. The total amount of N added to the soil is going to be about the same. The way I understand it, the longer a legume is allowed to mature, the more N is accumulated by the plant. But as it matures, the N is concentrated more and more in the seed as opposed to the roots. If you harvest the seed to eat it, you've reduced the total N that can be returned to the soil (there will still be some in the root nodules though). In any case, growing legumes causes a net increase in soil N. Compare this to growing corn, which fixes no N and if you don't add loads of N to the soil in the form of fertilizer, it will deplete your soil of N.

joe.jr317, Well Joe, I know that "We all enjoy composting. . ." because we are all actively inputting into this composting forum. Seems the word you take issue with is "enjoying". Some people just enjoy reading about composting to ask questions, without intending to do anything about the answers they get, and some folks just enjoy learning from what they read to hopefully do something "someday", and some (those who can), enjoy attempting to put into practice what they learned - and then there are others just enjoy complaining about things that they don't think will work - without ever trying them, to find out. Their motivation to participate in this forum is really none of my business, nor is the extent to which they actually perform composting activity. If a person does compost, they are an 'expert' in the way THEY choose to do it, even it it's their first day. So the word "proper" as you define it, does not necessarily have the same meaning to someone else. It's a matter of context, and anytime you (or anybody else) makes a "general" statement, the statement should be taken in that context. Point is, nobody appointed you responsible to 'protect' folks on this forum from people who don't agree with you, regardless of what you think about their qualifications and experience levels to give advice. Yes, you're right - I'm an 'optomist' who believes in the inherent "good" of mankind - and quite apparently to me, you are a 'pessimist' (or at least a 'pragmatic'), who believes that mankind is inherently "bad" - based on what you wrote. I happen to like most people. We all act like 'jerks' at times (even you), so forgive, and get over it without expressing your frustrations publicly. I think assuming the best from folks - is a good way to be. I'd rather be like me, than be like you (based on what you wrote and the way you expressed it). Just my preference - and like my opinion, I'm welcome to it. Yours can be different - and that's OK too. I'm not 'faulting' you for not being like me - I'm just saying that it should be (to you) OK for me to be different than you without that 'bothering' you. Folks like me understand that "it takes all kinds", so you can be the way you are, and we should be allowed to take people at their word. We are all capable of asking questions and making judgements about whether to trust what somebody says...and hopefully every ADULT has learned to not simply accept "anybody's" word at face value without obtaining more information (about that person, their qualifications/experience, or about the subject) before they act on it. If they don't, they'll just have to learn "the hard way" like all the rest of us did in some things. At some point in your educational process (in any given subject), through the eyes of an 'expert' (in that subject), you didn't know 'shinola' either - although you probably thought you did. So it's OK for other folks on this forum to think that they do too. And they ARE - in the way that THEY compost. Contrary opinions can be expressed in nice ways - without 'jerking somebody's chain'. You talk about somebody being "...purposefully demeaning..."and then you (in my opinion) exhibit the same kind of behaviour that you're complaining about. I personally think (from what I've read that kimmsr [Kimm] has posted), he/she is knowledgable about the general subject of composting, and provides valid information to people about the way he/she composts - in which he/she IS the ONLY expert. It is apparent to me that he/she is not knowledgeable about the way I compost, and that's OK. Kimm should not be expected to present ideas, questions and information that is the same as I understand/accept. Different context. So different meanings ARE going to be derived. We DON'T all use the same dictionary, and sometimes we make up words. For example, every plant has only ONE scientific name - but most of them have been given a bunch of common names that 'stuck'. Using the common name is OK too, although doing so can cause confusion at first. Secondly, I don't "see" the same thing in Kimm's posts that you do. I see no justification for believing that Kimm has "social issues" - and question your qualifications to make such a demeaning statement, especially in a public forum. Not respectful. Now to express my disagreement with you about the "...sitting idly by..." issue. You should KNOW by now, that I have no problem expressing my personal opinions - so I won't take that comment personally - but then - that would mean that your comment refers to "everybody", and in that context, my question to you, is who made you "judge and jury" about what is, or is not "misinformation"? In my opinion, you need to simply take a deep breath and 'get a grip', sir. If you disagree with something somebody said, then provide the specific information you think is right - and why - just like everybody else on this forum should, and let people make up their own minds. Ask questions and give the person a chance to respond, without "ringing their bell". I present information on this forum that lots of folks may know very little about (such as compost microbe activity/cyles), so I need to be prepared to substantiate my advice when requested. Do YOU have a microscope - and know HOW to use it - and know WHAT to look for)? When I write about compost microbes, should I assume you do, and provide technical information? Or should I assume you don't, and not write jargon that you might not understand? If I assume you do, but you don't, at least you then have the words to research the information - instead of just expressing generalities and making unsupported statements. That's my reasoning for being so darned 'wordy' (guilty - I'm a writer), so in my opinion, it's really important to provide specific information on which other forum users can base their responding opinions and advice. I try to operate my composting operation on the "leading edge" of the industry, so I experiment a lot. I have to understand that some folks don't, 'cause they don't care. Not fun for them. And I have to make that OK and not get 'bent our of shape' when they express their opinions contrary to mine. SOME of the information I present (for everybody to make their own judgement) is a result of MY trial-and-error composting experience for 50+ years. Not written down, except in my notes. Should I not share my findings for someone else to try - because I haven't written a book yet? In this forum I write about composting with the Frame technique, and I'd be willing to bet that you don't know what that is, much less how to use it "properly" based on your own composting experience. So when I refer to using that technique 'properly', you can take issue - but you'd be better off to ask questions, instead of trying to instruct me in the proper use of the term as YOU define it. I build vertical-sided stand-alone (unsupported) multiple compost piles 4-5' wide, 5-7' long and up to 48" high (yes, the Frame is adjustable), every month, with ONE 8-piece, 16" high portable wood frame (a technique I learned long ago, from an old Florida fella who could not erect a compost bin in his back yard due to CC&R restrictions - and HE called it a Frame - which is why I call it that) - which produces quality (high-nutrient, high-microbe and high-humus) compost (I call it 'quality' because that's what the experts at the Soil Testing Laboratory call it based on their written analysis reports). And I'd also bet that you can't find the Frame technique in any book you can buy, even online (I haven't found one yet). Now tell me that I'm providing "misinformation" because you can't find somebody else who wrote about the Frame technique. Experience Is VALID (even if not explained very well). On the other hand, a request for proof or explanation of statements/advice is certainly valid. Regarding the Frame technique, I'll be happy to send you copies of my compost analysis reports (validated results) and post photos of the Frame in use (if somebody would tell me how to do that), as well as request letters be sent to you from the Texas AgriLife County Extension Agents who recognize me as a composting 'expert' and who sponsor the composting workshops that I teach for other Master Gardeners in three counties, about using the Frame technique (as well as several other 'bin' methods). You are as welcome as anybody else on this forum to point out what you consider 'bad advice' or 'bogus information'. My point (in the previous post) was that such can be done in a nice (respectful) manner, and you should provide the specific reasons why you think so. Giving a website address as a reference is OK, but it sometimes appears like a CYA move to justify your point of view, unless you state the specific reason(s) in the body of your message. Particularly if the person has to "wade through" a lot of web pages to locate your reference.

Sounds a lot like voodoo... The E. coli in our guts are not "overwhelmed" by the "good" bacteria. E. coli are not "bad" in the proper - our intestine - environment. (Qualified by stating that nowadays, thanks to bacteriologists and geneticists, there are strains of E. coli that are harmful where ever they inhabit the gut.) There's no big deal about how to move water across the surface. Also, "fish" water pumps are not much more expensive than air pumps these days, and use energy for the purpose of "aeration" MUCH more efficiently than air pumps. Furthermore, "there ain't no sech thang as a free lunch". Ganging bubbling tubes isn't simply a matter of adding a manifold and more air stones. CHEAP air pumps barely pump enough air to make a SMALL air-stone work at anything deeper than 6". A small water pump that draws the same amperage as a cheap air pump can EASILY move more water than necessary to maximize oxygen partial pressure at any given ambient temperature suitable for raising worms (50 to 80 degrees F). I THINK the reason everyone talks about "oxygen" so much is not because oxygen is "good", but rather than NO oxygen - "anaerobic" - is usually "bad" not only because it promotes growth of "bad" bacteria, but even some common, and non-poisonous bacteria produce toxins in an anaerobic environment. The best way to minimize the possibility of "going anaerobic" is to aerate. All of this has piqued my interest. I think some personal experimentation and research are necessary for me to 'let this go'. At this point in time, I'd be inclined to mix up the "wort", stir occasionally for two to three days, and "call it good". I have available some pre-agared Petri dishes. I may see what 'grows' in "sugared" vs non-sugared and aerated and non-aerated "brews". I do not have the ability to determine exactly what the 'critters' that grow are, but I do have the ability to determine densities and gram-negative vs gram positive. Paul PS - The reason I put quotation marks around "aerobic" and "anaerobic" is becauseI never really cared for those terms to be used in the context of presence or absence of oxygen. "Aerobic" means "air", not oxygen. The more informative terms are oxygenated and anoxic. I'm not trying to be stuffy, but written communications are difficult enough without introducing confusion by way of casual use of technical terms. I fully acknowledge that "aerobic" and "anaerobic" are completely ensconced in the vernacular as meaning "with" oxygen and without" it. That acknowledgement only slightly mitigates the potential for confusion. Another of my pet peeves is the misuse of "accuracy" and "precision". I have given up spitting into that wind. I just get spit in my eye... I promise not to mention this again unless some confusion arises. :) Paul